Get activity workouts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are step-by-step with targets, which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about what happens for activities without a workout or about error/empty behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose leads, then a practical hint about the single parameter. Slightly undermines itself by being so terse that return shape and edge cases are absent, but there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but serviceable — it conveys what the payload broadly contains (steps with targets). It stops short of describing the empty case or response structure, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does add real meaning: it tells the agent that activity_id must come from garmin_search_activities or garmin_get_day. It doesn't specify the integer type or formatting, but the provenance guidance is the meaningful addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the structured workout(s) followed during an activity, with the added detail 'step by step with targets'. It is distinguishable from other activity siblings by focusing on the workout structure rather than the activity summary, though it never explicitly contrasts with garmin_get_activity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it applies when it wants workout structure for an activity. The one genuinely useful routing hint is the source of activity_id (garmin_search_activities or garmin_get_day), but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus garmin_get_activity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.